TV Home Forum

Terrestrial HDTV?

BBC whitepaper claims HD Freeview possible using MIMO (April 2007)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
JR
jrothwell97
Slashdot has picked up a CNet article about a new BBC whitepaper which says it is perfectly possible to transmit HDTV signals over Freeview using a MIMO (Multiple In, Multiple Out) system.

The whitepaper abstract posted:
Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) in the UK has been a great success with high levels of viewer take up. But DTT is severely capacity constrained, limiting opportunities for the continued growth of the platform. However, the likely emergence of revised set top boxes to receive anticipated new services, such as High Definition (HD), allows modifications to be considered to the basic delivery system.

The experimental hardware described here demonstrates a DTT modulation system with much greater spectral efficiency and/or robustness. It employs dual polarised transmit and receive antennas to form a 2-by-2 Multiple Input, Multiple Output (MIMO) system offering up to twice the throughput of conventional DVB-T. To achieve this, two DVB-T like signals, each with independent data, are transmitted in a single 8MHz RF channel.

Results from laboratory testing are presented along with data from field trials that provide an insight into the viability of such a system.


Thing is, it was first published in September last year - does that mean it's been discredited now, or have we failed to spot this?
OV
Orry Verducci
Seems like a logical system, which in theory should provide 2 high quality HD channel on 1 multiplex, plus an SD channel or two.
BR
Brekkie
It's a non-starter in my book - new transmitters, new aerials - you might as well just do it over Satellite!


Ultimately it probably be more costly than the extra mux they want on the current system to provide HD.
MI
Mich Founding member
Brekkie Boy posted:
It's a non-starter in my book - new transmitters, new aerials - you might as well just do it over Satellite!


Ultimately it probably be more costly than the extra mux they want on the current system to provide HD.


I'd say scrap any thoughts of HD on terrestrial - use any extra capacity for more channels and without excessive compression. Providing any sort of HD will seriously limit the range of channels.

Use FreeSat to bring HD to the nation for free...
GI
gilsta
Mich posted:

I'd say scrap any thoughts of HD on terrestrial - use any extra capacity for more channels and without excessive compression. Providing any sort of HD will seriously limit the range of channels.


You mean more quiz, shopping and pay channels? Feel the quality! These channels should be saved for FreeSat and HD should be available to everyone via Freeview, after all it is the leading digital service now. Why should anyone expect the public to go buy freesat for over a hundred quid if they want HD, on top of the expense of a new TV, when there is the option of providing it to the masses with technology they already own?
MI
Mich Founding member
gilsta posted:
Mich posted:

I'd say scrap any thoughts of HD on terrestrial - use any extra capacity for more channels and without excessive compression. Providing any sort of HD will seriously limit the range of channels.


You mean more quiz, shopping and pay channels? Feel the quality! These channels should be saved for FreeSat and HD should be available to everyone via Freeview, after all it is the leading digital service now. Why should anyone expect the public to go buy freesat for over a hundred quid if they want HD, on top of the expense of a new TV, when there is the option of providing it to the masses with technology they already own?


The long term aim of providing a small selection of HD channels is very unfullfilling - would you want to switch between BBC 1 and BBC 4 and between HD and SD. to waiting for programmes to move channels so that you could watch them in higher quality - an absolute waste of time.

More shopping and quiz channels? Maybe, but with a post digital nation i'd expect some channels to decide that advertising revenue is more tempting than subscription revenue.
BR
Brekkie
Considering IPTV is the future - and is also an area Freeview is looking at (already a reality with BT Vision), I think the most feasible way of providing HD content to Freeview viewers in the future is probably via a combined Freeview/IPTV set top box.
NW
nwtv2003
Why is it in such a country like the UK we cannot provide HD signals through the Terrestrial spectrum? It's a step foward and surley shouldn't Terrestrial lead this, even if it was only a BBC and ITV HD service, it would be better than nothing. The major US channels and the main Broadcasters down in Austrailia use Terrestrial HD signals, why can't we?

Why should it only be limited to Satellite and Cable.

If the space does become available post DSO then isn't it worth a shot?
TI
timgraham
nwtv2003 posted:
The major US channels and the main Broadcasters down in Austrailia use Terrestrial HD signals, why can't we?
Because Australia has only two extra channels - ABC2 and the SBS World News Channel (plus a whole lot of pointless 'Video Program Guide' channels to make up for the lack of full EPG). HD takes up a lot of space - as it is, quality suffers when there is only one HD + 1.5 SD channels per multiplex (each network has their own).

Pointless VPG channels (only the commercial broadcasters do them):
***

EDIT: In HD (more to come later):
*
NG
noggin Founding member
nwtv2003 posted:
Why is it in such a country like the UK we cannot provide HD signals through the Terrestrial spectrum?


Because we chose to go with a "Freeview" system - which has been incredibly popular - more so than the US or Aussie terrestrial digital systems.

When digital compression and modulation schemes became viable - in spectrum that cannot be used for analogue TV for interference reasons - the US decided to allocate a second frequency to existing analogue broadcasters, on the proviso that they simulcasted their existing analogue service. Most US broadcasters have decided to do this in HD - meaning they don't have space for multiple services without compromising HD quality, or switching their HD signal down to SD during some times of the day. In Australia a similar situation developed, though the Aussies require a simulcast in both SD and HD to be carried on their digital frequency.

Because the US and Aus HD systems launched in the late 90s/early 00s they use the relatively elderly MPEG2 encoding system for HD and SD broadcasts.

In the UK we took a radically different view, and instead split the 6 frequencies - or muxes - (post ITV/ONDigital ) available between the BBC (2 frequencies), ITV and C4 (1 frequency), Five/SDN (1 frequency) and Crown Castle (now National Grid Wireless) (2 frequencies)

Each of these 6 frequencies carry around 4-6 SD services in MPEG2.

We therefore get a LOT more services on terrestrial digital than people in the US and Aus, because we use SD only not HD.

Quote:

It's a step foward and surley shouldn't Terrestrial lead this, even if it was only a BBC and ITV HD service, it would be better than nothing. The major US channels and the main Broadcasters down in Austrailia use Terrestrial HD signals, why can't we?

Why should it only be limited to Satellite and Cable.

If the space does become available post DSO then isn't it worth a shot?


Once frequency spectrum is released after analogue switch off/digital switch over - then additional terrestrial space could be allocated for HD - but there is no space currently. However the government would like to get money from the spectrum sale - and broadcasters may not be the highest bidders. One more mux would allow 1 excellent HD service - possibly 2 as compression improves, particularly as MPEG4 H264 encoders are perfected.

At the end of the day it is about money.

The one thing to remember is that many countries look to the UK as a digital broadcasting success - our Freeview system is deemed the most effective digital OTA system - and the Aussies and Americans are certainly aware of it and taking notice.
SE
seamus
I think digital HD is uncompressed iin the us, but there is only one extra channel, and it sucked i remember. It's just a weather channel.

22 days later

BC
Blake Connolly Founding member
Interesting bit of info from the submission to the BBC Trust to approve the full launch of BBC HD, if approved in November (on the last day the BBC HD trial service has been extended to) then the service will continue as normal on cable and satellite, and will grow over the course of a year to a full 9-hour service starting with CBBC at 3 o'clock, then BBC TWO's lifestyle and factual programmes in the early evening, followed by a mirror of the BBC ONE prime time schedule which by late 2008 they see as being mostly HD (yes, including EastEnders). And then from 10 o'clock till midnight it'll be mostly BBC THREE & FOUR programmes.

What they plan to do for DTT is close BBC FOUR early, at 2am, and also close BBC PARLIAMENT, the BBCi channels and News Multiscreen for 4 hours a night and broadcast BBC HD from 2-6am Top Up TV style. Then, if Ofcom gives new MUXes after DSO they'll switch to the full 9-hour channel, otherwise they'll keep with the 4 hours a night format.

Newer posts